IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Sankaran … Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State by the Inspector of Police

Sulur Police Station

Coimbatore – 641 402

2. Veeran

3. XXXX ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under

the POCSO Act, Coimbatore and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamuki

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

Mr.A.Pragadeeshwaran for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final

report in Spl.S.C.No.145 of 2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 366, 343, 376(3) and 449 of IPC and Sections 3(a), 4(2), 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, on the ground of

compromise.

2. The allegations against the petitioner in the final report are that whenever the daughter of the de facto complainant was alone at home, the petitioner used to commit penetrative sexual assault on her and subsequently, he abducted the victim girl under the pretext of marrying her and also committed penetrative sexual assault on her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the father of the victim girl, the case came to be registered against the petitioner. He would further submit that it is a case of consensual relationship between two youngsters and that they belong to lower strata of society. As on date, the petitioner is aged 22 years and the victim girl is aged 18 years. After the victim girl attained majority, the petitioner married the victim girl and their marriage has also been registered before the Sub-Registrar’s Office on 09.06.2025. He would also submit that due to wedlock, they have got a boy child and they are all living together happily. He would further submit that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant have entered into a compromise and a Joint Compromise Memo to that effect has also been filed. The victim girl/ 3^rd respondent has also filed a consent affidavit for compromising the matter. Therefore, when the petitioner and the de facto complainant and the victim girl have compromised the matter, no useful purpose will be served by continuing the impugned proceedings; hence, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the ground of compromise.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent-Police submitted that though the parties entered into a compromise while this case is pending, this Court, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, has to consider the issue as to whether an offence of this nature can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.

5. The petitioner, the de facto complainant and the victim girl along with her child, were present before this Court at the time of hearing and they were identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and also by Ms.J.Mareeswari, Periyanayakkanpalayam AWPS.

6. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the petitioner and the victim girl/3^rd respondent have been living together as husband and wife and the de facto complainant has no objection in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. The main issue that requires the consideration of this Court is as to whether this Court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences pending against the petitioner.

8. The Supreme Court, in a very recent judgment in K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 1272], in which the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, by